She refuses to accept that she did wrong and insists she is the victim of a world that is out to get her. She’s not even past step 1: acceptance of fault. It takes a seriously narcissistic scumbag to continue to blame the punishment for her own actions on “the system” & try to extract sympathy and even more cynically, $ from others by committing to living the lie.
Did she do anything wrong? The basis for the ban is a set of presumptions that no one had to establish or prove. That's in the CAS report.
According to USADA Chief Tygart, the system that convicted her is broken. For these kinds of cases of unexplained presence consistent with unknowing ingestion, the system is very one-sided against the athlete.
It wasn't consistent with unknowing ingestion - or she would have gotten off. It was consistent with intentional doping, as CAS found. But did she do anything wrong? I guess a violation isn't really a violation in your books - not when it comes to doping. Athletes are accidentally ingesting banned substances all over the place - and, really, why should they be punished for it when it doesn't help them. Let's disband the whole WADA farce and have a pharmaceutical free-for-all (especially amongst altitude-trained distance runners, who don't need it - but still use it).
The account was down months ago and had already been pointed out. Trying to frame this as “weird” to point this out is just deflecting. It’s not invading her privacy.
but if microdosing nandrolone could work so well for so long, Houlihan's performances of 2018 and 2020 wouldn't stand out, as women worldwide would have been running these times long before Houlihan in 2018, as nandrolone has been available and used by athletes as far back as the 1960s, including by direct injection and macro-dosing. I mean, WTF Spock
but if microdosing nandrolone could work so well for so long, Houlihan's performances of 2018 and 2020 wouldn't stand out, as women worldwide would have been running these times long before Houlihan in 2018, as nandrolone has been available and used by athletes as far back as the 1960s, including by direct injection and macro-dosing. I mean, WTF Spock
Women's distance running didn't become super competitive until the 70's/80's. I mean, look at the women's 3000m steeple times. It didn't even become a ratified event until the 90's, and then records starting dropping pretty healthily. The 10k records were also ratified for women very late too.
I'm also not even sure if macro-dosing compared to micro-dosing differentiates that much for distance runners, since they don't need anywhere near as drastic cycles compared to a 100m sprinter/shotput thrower (e.g. diminishing marginal returns). Also not every distance runner would even be opting for 19-NA, but rather a combination of EPO/Test/any other protocols to suit their training needs/w.e. their body responds to best.
Shelby probably just paired Nandrolone w/ EPO & Test because her coach thought it'd be a good way to stay injury-free before trials or that she just generally responds to it well.
Did she do anything wrong? The basis for the ban is a set of presumptions that no one had to establish or prove. That's in the CAS report.
According to USADA Chief Tygart, the system that convicted her is broken. For these kinds of cases of unexplained presence consistent with unknowing ingestion, the system is very one-sided against the athlete.
It wasn't consistent with unknowing ingestion - or she would have gotten off. It was consistent with intentional doping, as CAS found. But did she do anything wrong? I guess a violation isn't really a violation in your books - not when it comes to doping. Athletes are accidentally ingesting banned substances all over the place - and, really, why should they be punished for it when it doesn't help them. Let's disband the whole WADA farce and have a pharmaceutical free-for-all (especially amongst altitude-trained distance runners, who don't need it - but still use it).
You mistate the criteria for "getting off". Consistent with "unknowing ingestion" and consistent with "exogenous origin" are not mutually exclusive. Her test results can be "consistent with" multiple scenarios.
You don't really answer what she did that was wrong. The rules refer to engaging in conduct meeting certain criteria with athlete knowledge, but the AIU/CAS failed to identify what conduct she engaged in and failed to establish it was done with the knowledge that it would or could lead to a rule violation. "Wake Up Shelby" complained Shelby "refuses to accept that she did wrong", but there was no knowledgeable conduct established that she engaged in for her to accept.
You are correct that a violation is a violation, but the question was whether she actually did something wrong. Rule violations under a principle of "strict liability" do not necessarily mean she did anything wrong. To determine the rule violation, the AIU did not need to, and they did not, consider intent, fault, negligence, or knowing use/presence. Non-intentional, no-fault, non-negligent, or unknowing use/presence are all violations, without exception.
If "Wake Up Shelby" was merely talking about a "violation", then she has already accepted that she is responsible for everything in her body (rules 2.1 and 2.2), but felt that 4-years was too long a punishment when the source had not been established.
It wasn't consistent with unknowing ingestion - or she would have gotten off. It was consistent with intentional doping, as CAS found. But did she do anything wrong? I guess a violation isn't really a violation in your books - not when it comes to doping. Athletes are accidentally ingesting banned substances all over the place - and, really, why should they be punished for it when it doesn't help them. Let's disband the whole WADA farce and have a pharmaceutical free-for-all (especially amongst altitude-trained distance runners, who don't need it - but still use it).
You mistate the criteria for "getting off". Consistent with "unknowing ingestion" and consistent with "exogenous origin" are not mutually exclusive. Her test results can be "consistent with" multiple scenarios.
You don't really answer what she did that was wrong. The rules refer to engaging in conduct meeting certain criteria with athlete knowledge, but the AIU/CAS failed to identify what conduct she engaged in and failed to establish it was done with the knowledge that it would or could lead to a rule violation. "Wake Up Shelby" complained Shelby "refuses to accept that she did wrong", but there was no knowledgeable conduct established that she engaged in for her to accept.
You are correct that a violation is a violation, but the question was whether she actually did something wrong. Rule violations under a principle of "strict liability" do not necessarily mean she did anything wrong. To determine the rule violation, the AIU did not need to, and they did not, consider intent, fault, negligence, or knowing use/presence. Non-intentional, no-fault, non-negligent, or unknowing use/presence are all violations, without exception.
If "Wake Up Shelby" was merely talking about a "violation", then she has already accepted that she is responsible for everything in her body (rules 2.1 and 2.2), but felt that 4-years was too long a punishment when the source had not been established.
She doped - your strained attempted excuses notwithstanding. It wasn't accidental. If it wasn't something wrong she wouldn't have incurred a 4 year penalty. Athletes arent punished for behaving well.
Yes, we do know that she doped intentionally with synthetic nandrolone. But there is so much we don't know, including the answers to:
1) When did she start doping?
2) What else did she use?
3) Who orchestrated her doping program?
4) Who else was (and still is?) on that program?
5) Why did she finally get caught?
6) Why did USADA fail do catch her?
You understate what "we don't know".
We don't really know that she doped intentionally -- any "intentional" finding here was a direct result of not establishing the source on the balance of probability to a CAS Panel, rather than any affirmative establishing of intent. So all we really know is that she didn't establish the source on the balance of probability to a CAS Panel.
We also don't know that she doped with synthetic nandrolone, but just that it was "consistent with" some "pseudo-endogenous" norsteroid products which can be found on the market.
We also don't know if she "used" anything else, or whether there was any "doping program" for her or for anyone else, so many of your questions are premature, lacking any proper foundation.
We do know that USADA failed to catch her because her previous test results were negative.
She doped - your strained attempted excuses notwithstanding. It wasn't accidental. If it wasn't something wrong she wouldn't have incurred a 4 year penalty. Athletes arent punished for behaving well.
You keep responding as if you believe you have something of substance to contribute, but still avoid answering a rather basic question. Your "if it were not so ..." pseudo-rationalization not only fails to answer the question, but is wrong, according to a long time anti-doping expert.
USADA Chief Travis Tygart has been warning us since 2015 that athletes can be treated like intentional cheats for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
From a SportsIntegrity Initiative article, Tygart is quoted: "... the Code in certain cases, railroads innocent athletes into four year sanctions. At our last count, we recorded 27 cases where athletes did absolutely nothing wrong but were treated like intentional cheats."
Under the current WADA Code, it is not enough to say rules were violated to conclude she actually did something wrong.
I'd certainly donate if she went the Suzy route although admittedly I already did that with another renowned US team member who's name I will not mention on a public forum.
She doped - your strained attempted excuses notwithstanding. It wasn't accidental. If it wasn't something wrong she wouldn't have incurred a 4 year penalty. Athletes arent punished for behaving well.
LOL yes - her intentional doping with synthetic nandro was proven over one full year ago, for everyone to see. Rekrunner is just rekrunnering for the fun of it as per usual - don't encourage him.
She doped - your strained attempted excuses notwithstanding. It wasn't accidental. If it wasn't something wrong she wouldn't have incurred a 4 year penalty. Athletes arent punished for behaving well.
You keep responding as if you believe you have something of substance to contribute, but still avoid answering a rather basic question. Your "if it were not so ..." pseudo-rationalization not only fails to answer the question, but is wrong, according to a long time anti-doping expert.
USADA Chief Travis Tygart has been warning us since 2015 that athletes can be treated like intentional cheats for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
From a SportsIntegrity Initiative article, Tygart is quoted: "... the Code in certain cases, railroads innocent athletes into four year sanctions. At our last count, we recorded 27 cases where athletes did absolutely nothing wrong but were treated like intentional cheats."
Under the current WADA Code, it is not enough to say rules were violated to conclude she actually did something wrong.
Tygart wasn't talking about Houlihan. The chances were assessed as being near to zero that Houlihan accidentally injested a banned drug.
Shelby probably just paired Nandrolone w/ EPO & Test because her coach thought it'd be a good way to stay injury-free before trials or that she just generally responds to it well.
Hope that clears things up.
+1
As for her standing out, drug cheat Houlihan is no. 14 all time over 5000 m, behind 9 Ethiopian-born runners including the Dutch Hassan, trained by drug cheat coach Salazar, 3 Kenyan, and the Russian drug cheat Shobukhova. No clean non-African born has ever run faster than Houlihan.
Similarly, drug cheat Houlihan is no. 16 all time over 1500 m, behind 3 Ethiopian-born runners including the Dutch Hassan, trained by drug cheat coach Salazar, 1 Kenyan, 7 Chinese from Ma's army, 3 out of the East bloc with state-sponsored doping in the 80s, and Muir with super spikes.
She doped - your strained attempted excuses notwithstanding. It wasn't accidental. If it wasn't something wrong she wouldn't have incurred a 4 year penalty. Athletes arent punished for behaving well.
LOL yes - her intentional doping with synthetic nandro was proven over one full year ago, for everyone to see. Rekrunner is just rekrunnering for the fun of it as per usual - don't encourage him.
Casual lies.
Neither "intentional" nor "synthetic" were "proven".
"Intentional" was presumed.
"Synthetic" is your word. The experts said "pseudo-endogenous" but didn't "prove" it.
LOL yes - her intentional doping with synthetic nandro was proven over one full year ago, for everyone to see. Rekrunner is just rekrunnering for the fun of it as per usual - don't encourage him.
Casual lies.
Neither "intentional" nor "synthetic" were "proven".
"Intentional" was presumed.
"Synthetic" is your word. The experts said "pseudo-endogenous" but didn't "prove" it.
This is available for everyone to see.
What is also available for everyone to see is a 4 year ban. What you see is utterly irrelevant.
I think this site is deleting old Houlihan threads, especially the ones breathlessly celebrating her amazing talent and talking about how she would never dope. Down the memory hole.
She doped - your strained attempted excuses notwithstanding. It wasn't accidental. If it wasn't something wrong she wouldn't have incurred a 4 year penalty. Athletes arent punished for behaving well.
You keep responding as if you believe you have something of substance to contribute, but still avoid answering a rather basic question. Your "if it were not so ..." pseudo-rationalization not only fails to answer the question, but is wrong, according to a long time anti-doping expert.
USADA Chief Travis Tygart has been warning us since 2015 that athletes can be treated like intentional cheats for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
From a SportsIntegrity Initiative article, Tygart is quoted: "... the Code in certain cases, railroads innocent athletes into four year sanctions. At our last count, we recorded 27 cases where athletes did absolutely nothing wrong but were treated like intentional cheats."
Under the current WADA Code, it is not enough to say rules were violated to conclude she actually did something wrong.
Tygart is an apologist and totally wrong. If it were up to him she wouldn't have been banned but she should be banned. She had an illegal substance in her system. I don't believe for even a second she didn't dope on purpose but even if she didn't who cares? It was in her system, she benefited from having it in her system, she should be banned for having it in her system even if it was accidental.
I think this site is deleting old Houlihan threads, especially the ones breathlessly celebrating her amazing talent and talking about how she would never dope. Down the memory hole.
You keep responding as if you believe you have something of substance to contribute, but still avoid answering a rather basic question. Your "if it were not so ..." pseudo-rationalization not only fails to answer the question, but is wrong, according to a long time anti-doping expert.
USADA Chief Travis Tygart has been warning us since 2015 that athletes can be treated like intentional cheats for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
From a SportsIntegrity Initiative article, Tygart is quoted: "... the Code in certain cases, railroads innocent athletes into four year sanctions. At our last count, we recorded 27 cases where athletes did absolutely nothing wrong but were treated like intentional cheats."
Under the current WADA Code, it is not enough to say rules were violated to conclude she actually did something wrong.
Tygart wasn't talking about Houlihan. The chances were assessed as being near to zero that Houlihan accidentally injested a banned drug.
The statement I replied to didn't say "Houlihan" but "Athletes":
"Athletes arent punished for behaving well."
Whatever you think the chances were assessed at doesn't answer the question.
Yes, we do know that she doped intentionally with synthetic nandrolone. But there is so much we don't know, including the answers to:
1) When did she start doping?
2) What else did she use?
3) Who orchestrated her doping program?
4) Who else was (and still is?) on that program?
5) Why did she finally get caught?
6) Why did USADA fail do catch her?
You understate what "we don't know".
We don't really know that she doped intentionally -- any "intentional" finding here was a direct result of not establishing the source on the balance of probability to a CAS Panel, rather than any affirmative establishing of intent. So all we really know is that she didn't establish the source on the balance of probability to a CAS Panel.
We also don't know that she doped with synthetic nandrolone, but just that it was "consistent with" some "pseudo-endogenous" norsteroid products which can be found on the market.
We also don't know if she "used" anything else, or whether there was any "doping program" for her or for anyone else, so many of your questions are premature, lacking any proper foundation.
We do know that USADA failed to catch her because her previous test results were negative.
None of this matters. None of it. not a single thing you mention.
The ONLY two things that matter are tese questions:
1: Did she have dope in her system? Yes.
2: Did he have a plausible reason that excused having dope in her system? no.
That's ALL that matters, no matter how many times you insist otherwise.